It makes more sense to provide the hardware first, and then work on the software to use it. It's somewhat harder to do the other way around. I myself would rather see a T4240 kit with lots of cores, but some call me crazy.
If I were the designer, I'd want to add in as many advanced features as possible, so the board supports them when the software catches up, and the user can benefit from such OS upgrades. Or, like my XE-G4, it won't do anything better when OS4 does get SMP support. I'd prefer untapped potential to a blockade.
True SMP simply can't be incorporated into Amiga without breaking the Amiga environment/backwards compatibility in such fundamental ways that you could as well introduce 64-bit, true memory protection and do a proper ISA switch to x86 while you are at it. There is no point in hanging on to the PPC after restarting with a clean slate. So if this has really been the plan, then the "X2000" (and the "X1000" as well for that matter) is redundant and an even worse idea.
Uh, what?! How does that relate to my post?
Using the logic of the guy that my reply was to:
I'm still not getting why they bother with dual-core when OS4 doesn't support SMP?
That kind of logic should lead to questioning your advice, why port to x86 as there is not already a pile of x86 softwares to run on the OS when it gets there... And his question then continues, as why bother with Core i7 or Haswell that have lots of cores that are still not yet supported? I don't get it...
Now, I am not arguing against moving to x86. That would certainly save me a lot of time and effort and money learning how to make a modern and as high-end as one can do PPC laptop. It might be a little less fun, as I enjoy pondering the puzzle, and with x86 then there's a lot of already done options, so nothing fun left to think about.
